Catton v IRD and others
Dear Friends,
I have had numerous phone calls to Manukau Family Court and the Auckland High Court to ascertain the advancement of these proceedings that were directed back in June 2007 by Judge Rogers.
Aparrently Family/High/Family/ High have traversed and neither knew what to to do as the argument is unprecedented and the role of the Family Court has been stumped and possibly the Higher Court yet again may also be stumped upon my simplistic isuue Can IRD continue taking Child Support when a Child/ren has been abducted and therefore committing crime under the Crimes Act aiding and abetting Child Abduction.
WE have now have two imprisoned from Maunganui, and Kay herself with others to be further trialled .
Please give comment upon this irregularity as it is an irregularity that is well past date and only being recognized by the insistence of myself and others.
Posts RSS 2.0
Dear Oh Dear Oh Me, Perhaps this might be under Section such and such to not speak about.
Well! I take the Boshier act.
Say and be damned not say and be further damned, and if wrong to publish the High Court will say it was erroneous just like Peter
Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 17th September 2007 @ 10:43 pm
What happens to the payment while the child is abducted? Because IRD knows but is bound by secrecy from telling, does it get passed along?
Comment by Alastair — Mon 17th September 2007 @ 11:31 pm
And when you add child support by fraud perjury and contempt of court, it is no wonder those that know they are on their way to an election defeat want to close the SFO.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 18th September 2007 @ 8:24 am
They have done for years and I have little doubt that they will continue to do so.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 18th September 2007 @ 9:25 am
Not really Scrap.
What has happened in the past is that they have been able to because there hasn’t been a body of men, male enough to point out to them that what they have been doing is not only illegal, but morally corrupt.
This time around we have a few blokes on your side.
You have the ticket. Use it. Ring the media. Find out what the media are doing about it and iif they are not prepared to “come out” then we should go and knock on the doors of their closets. Non - violently.
Respectfully,
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 18th September 2007 @ 10:37 am
Paul,
I’ve published through my mail that your comments exist and that these should be researched.
What is needed is a press release - ideally from Bevan. Supported by those members backing from the perspective of a father’s coalition. At some stage “blokes”, collectively, of a modern day society are going to be prepared to say, in a way that will be respected, that they have had a gutsful of being exploited for the love of their children.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 18th September 2007 @ 1:27 pm
What has happened in the past is that they have been able to because there
You are assuming that IRD are acting illegally. That will only be decided via the Courts and IRD and Crown Law will take it all the way.
You might like to think before you make assumptions that this is a gender war. Child support does not care about gender it will and does screw liable parents who for you enlightenment are men and women.
Paul has asked a question and the “jury” is out.There is no ruling (apart from previous HC and FC decisions of a similar nature - i.e the validity of assessments and the power to enforce collection).
The media value will exist during a hearing and when a decision is made and the aggrived parent is rolled out for the cameras.
What currently exisists is a question before a court.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 18th September 2007 @ 3:40 pm
(NOT EDITED)
In principle, yes - I concede with the basic perception of fact. I would like to think positively toward your view and accept that Pete Burns is right, still to concentrate on the thought that a Ministry of Men’s affairs is the response, the vision and the practice for reform. But I know different. So I will answer to my principle concession last.
I know different because men and “women” are in jail. I didn’t say this was a gender war. I say we need men at teh front. Like always like ever, we are bigger and we are tougher. We are bigger and tougher because our bodies do not have to, for their function surrender to accomodate another life form. Our duty in life is determined by the instrument of our funtion. When I say “in front” I do not mean that Helen Clark has no role to be the Prime Minister, or Sian Elias the Chief Justice, Margaret Wilson the Speaker and when she was Dame Sylvia Cartwright the Governor General. I imply that the information necessary to justify a separation of function to allow women to administer in such roles, has not been researched effectively, properly or responsibly. The jury should have been instructed and then given an opportunity to scrutise all of the evidence. Women’s violence precluded this function. Women wanted to exercise their power because it was their right.
So I repeat this is not a gender war at all. It is a demand that we run our systems properly and to their best effect to a responsibly evolved condition. For this we need to devolve. “We” have prisoners behind bars who are likely to be imprisoned on improper grounds for the application of improper practice.
If you analyse my last sentence, you will concur, I am sure that again I concede to your statement and we still do not know what the verdict of the Court should be. And where I give this same ground by implication in my earlier message, my request was for you to become proactive and contact the media: asking questions - making statements, protecting your position of philosophy with commitment to the events, as men like Paul do - so that the events occur - so that men like you are capable to respond and be proactive to put pressure on the media so that the media are bound - because the media are there to be responsive to men like James Nicolle - men who have dedicated hours upon hours upon hours trawling through the anquish of a major societal problem.
Your reply to this is that Crown Law will be responsible. To what? And to whom should they be so responsible? For example, I met with a Crown Law soliciter on the issue of the introduction of the COC. They made a submission. The lawyer said emphatically that what teh Crown law suggests to the Crown and what the executive put out are two quite different acts. At some stage, although it is unlikely I will ever get access, I would like to read what Crown Law had to say about the COC.
But that isn’t what you mean I am sure. You are talking more about the arm of prosecution, and with the same confidence you are talking about the bench and fairness - but I don’t quite believe that you have caught on to what Paul is saying. They have lost their authority.
This isn’t yes we will make a decision, it is that they have lost their authority because the roles separating social function are different from adjudication.
Now Paul’s case is absolutely fantastic because he has teh balls to get out there and have a go at uncovering the rubbish from on top of teh carpet to find that the carpet itself is still very plush. He is right and they are wrong. I don’t expect many people to comprehend what I said then, yet will give you my own example in order for you better to understand.
Family law is about social function. You cannot use the Courts to fix the problems that occur. You cannot use authority or punitive force to enforce the will of one over another. It doesn’t work. To make it work you have to write mistakes into your authority to convince everyone else that you know best and are allowed to inflict pain on another soul to any degree you so choose to decree because “you” know best. Paul found one of those mistakes. I found another. They tried to make me attend a living without violence course for being violent when I was never violent. And then when I wouldn’t attend the course they made me guiilty of domestic violence against my children. I questioned my former wife in court on this violence and on two seperate occassions she admitted that there was no violence. So did the judge throw out the case? No. He excused the witness. No: he rejected other evidence from being presented to the jury. And worse, whern I went to the Higher Court and said to them “come on boys, you have a real problem here “come clean”, they too lied - but more directly on this occassion pretending that I was saying, I need more time to feel sorry for myself. I don’t expect you to comprehend this one either Scrap.
So to concede to your principle view - sure - I would like to have faith in the bureaucracy. I would like to have faith in New Zealand’s track record of wanting the truth to be protected to be protected but I have no evidence in order to make such a judgment. Not yet anyway.
What would help - is if you for your experience in Child Support talked with paul and found out about his case proper. I was at his last hearing so already know exactly what is going on. And you take up my challenge of you to accept responsibility on behalf of “all” separated parents and champion the “fact” that Paul uncovered and I secured in proof from Peter Dunne that the State is double dipping from the nett pretending it is gross (it is gross) and that that considerable amount of money goes directly to your son/ and/or daughter/s.
In short James, and with respect, as I have considerable respect for you for your passion, energy tenacity and intelligence, stop tinking. Peter Dunne and Michael Cullen need some help.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 19th September 2007 @ 10:44 am
Should parents left behind by child abduction have “child support” payments extorted from them by IRD CS?
>
In the USA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement said on 25th February 1999 DC-99-19 25/2/1999:
>
We want to alert you to a concern that has come to our attention regarding the responsibility of State IV-D agencies in providing services in cases where international child abduction is at issue.
There may be cases involving requests for IV-D services by or on behalf of an individual residing in a foreign country where it would be inappropriate or impossible for the IV-D agency to provide services. This includes situations in which the custody of the child is in dispute or determined to be in violation of State law or the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Of specific concern is a situation where an individual residing in another country who has abducted a child or refused to return the child after a holiday or a period of joint custody abroad, requests IV-D services to obtain child support from the parent in the United States who maintains legal custody of such child under State law.
There is no Federal mandate under title IV-D of the Social Security Act that requires IV-D agencies to enforce child support where a custody dispute exists. The State IV-D agency clearly has discretion not to proceed in providing child support enforcement services in cases of disputed custody, even where there is a State or Federal reciprocity agreement with the country in which the child is located.
>
The policy of not supporting international abductors predates the letter above.
In NZ, IRD CS have considered the same ethical, child development and legal issue and have apparently come to the conclusion that they should support international child abductors. This is shown in Paul Catton’s experience with IRD CS. (The financial trail associated with the payments forwarded could be used to locate the abducting parent and lead toward the return of the child, but apparently this is not being done by IRD CS staff? (How can these people look into the eyes of their own children, with the knowledge of the part they are playing in encouraging and facilitating international child abductions out of NZ?)
Due to the cost of “legal services”, the cost to assemble the ethical, child development and legal issues (plus some budget allowance for “costs” if you lose), is outside the financial reach of most parents left behind by child abduction. (If you were in the situation of trying to internationally track your own children, would you have enough spare money, energy and time, to put into challenging the financial and legal resources of the NZ Government IRD? Most people would expect that the Government would be helping the left behind parent to retrieve their children.)
Obviously, the only path which would allow parents left behind by child abduction to assemble sufficient resources, would be a class action. Ben has suggested that testosterone is the essential missing ingredient. I suggest that group internal communications and cohesiveness are the ingredients that are in short supply.
There are probably about 3000 parents in NZ in this situation, through the last 20 years. A few will have died through natural causes, some through broken hearts and being unable to care for themselves, some (maybe 40) by their own hand in the face of the lack of support they receive from our society.
If any parents left behind by child abduction would like to send me their contacts, I would like to help them to get in contact and improve support available to them. These people should not just be seen as desperate parents who can be taken advantage of by “legal workers”.
For the sake of these abducted children, lets provide support for their honest parent, rather than for the abducting parent - as at present.
The only way we can protect our children from international abduction at the border, is by microchipping. As an example, a NZ child could be supplied with a genuine foreign passport - but in a false name. We should be doing this right now. MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 19th September 2007 @ 12:10 pm
The Grab, Snatch and Take Department (AKA IRD) have one focus - revenue collection. This drives the way the department acts (or fails to act).
Their conscience is eased by the belief that all they are doing is enforcing what parliament has decreed as law.(based on what IRD have recommended.)
That a parent can abduct or deprive a child of the other parent by law and then the aggrieved parent be required to pay for the privilege by revenue collectors is wrong.
However strategically a court case will not change this the only way is to change the law.
Tactically that requires action to support the goal.
Operationally timing of action is critical.
Logistical preperation is the key - you cant win a war without it.
That doesnt mean that Paul or any-one resisting the IRD should stop. What it means is that all should resist and come 2008 that resistance will explode on the streets.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 19th September 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Ben this is not a startling new revalation.Its been know for a considerable time that this is the case. However I am digesting what I AM CHILD SUPPORT (Peter Dunne United Future Leader) has written in response.
Unfortunately the priority is low as I am focused on Operation 2008
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 19th September 2007 @ 3:10 pm
I don’t have the time to go to Operation 2008, now, nor write up what has happened in the House today as I am just off hitching up Palmerston way to prepare a case - then up to Auckland for the weekend - seeing my son, (YAY) and possibly my daughter if she who always wants to see me has not been further directly poisoned by a mother intent to poison every vessel vulnerable to her scorn - and (DOUBLE YAY)and hopefully, by phone at least I’ll ring Paul. If you’ve talked with Paul by the weekend with any idea on any kind of practical action necessary then, within (some) limits Scrap - You can push me along blindfold!
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 19th September 2007 @ 4:01 pm
BTW - there’s a hole in the waka.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 19th September 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Comment 7
“You are assuming that IRD are acting illegally”
during my growing years i was taught that law was meant to protect ethics and it is good to be ethically correct than legally correct as law was meant to protect and promote morality and ethics…… these days i am learning that it is best to be legally correct and it doesn’t matter if you aremorally and ethically wrong as long as you are LEGALLY CORRECT….
Comment by starr — Wed 19th September 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Murray, why not ask Paul what he needs and then supply it for him. From what I have seen the USA law has less influence in NZ than colonial legislation. Canadian international law is well respected.
Paul is the one before the Courts; Paul Catton is there - He may need specific support. Bevan Berg is before the Human Rights Commission - He may need specific support.
Why not ask these guys what they want or need and then supply them with what you can; like they have access to a library?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 20th September 2007 @ 2:04 am
Dear Ben, your message 15 is essentially a personal message, thus in breach of the Rules set by John Potter for this website.
The suggestions that you make, I have already done, not just yesterday, but also many months previously.
Do you have enough available time, to create new ideas, that could move these isues forward?
Given the issues above, I suggest that my comment, plus Ben’s previous comment should both be deleted, as being outside John Potter’s Rules for this website.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 20th September 2007 @ 7:01 am